Ice @ Iceblade02 @lemmy.world

Posts

56

Comments

392

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just for the record, even in Italy the winter tires are required for the season (but we can just have chains on board and we are good).

Double checking and it doesn't seem like it? Then again I don't live in Italy. Here in Sweden you'll face a fine of ~2000kr (roughly 200€) per tire on your vehicle that is out of spec.

https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/travelling-motor-vehicles/motor-vehicles/winter-tyres-in-europe.html

Granted that you need to write a more complex law, but in the end it is nothing impossible.

...and thus it is much simpler to handle these kinds of regulations at a lower level. No need for everyone everywhere to agree, people can have rules that work for them where they live, folks are happier and don't have to struggle against a system run by bureaucrats so far away they have no idea what reality on the ground is (and they can't, it's impossible to account for every scenario centrally). Even on a municipal level certain regulations differ, and that's completely ok!

An EU directive has no effect in Italy unless a law that acknowledges it is enacted. True, we must write a law that implement the directive but it is not an automatism.

This is exactly what I wrote in the comment you replied to, albeit with different wording? Basically the only other options if the nation does not want to comply is: a) suffering punitive actions from the EU indefinitely or until they comply or b) leaving the EU.

This is obviously subjective depending on what you want to achieve with your llm, but "Bad" data in that it showcases the opposite of what is desirable output. Think bunk conspiracies, hostility, deception, racism, religious extremism etc.

Interesting - I can sort of intuit why it might help. Feeding the model bad data and instructing training it to identify it as such would be advantageous compared to being entirely unaware of it.

That depends on what you mean by integrate. There are many clear examples where it makes no sense to enforce homogenous legislation. Europe is a big place, and it makes sense to have different systems in different places.

Take tires for instance - in the Scandinavian countries we require winter tires for the season, something which would make no sense in Italy for instance.

The EU is one entity, consisting of several member states. Just like my own country consists of many regions and municipalities with their own elected officials.

Member states are forced to comply with legislation passed by the EU, even if a majority of the citizens of a state do not want to implement it. Technically there are two other options - sufferimg massive fines and punitive actions by the EU, or leaving. I'd rather not have to endure either of those, so instead I complain, loudly, online, to politicians, MPs and MEPs.

I have.

It includes "compliance with EU regulations" which in this case is soon going to involve redirecting and tracking visitors to sites such as thepiratebay.

Fully expect this to be a move to enable them to enforce this via blocking DNS providers that don't comply with censorship lists, instead directing people to use this.

I don't need an EU DNS, I already have OpenDNS.

The EU is already trying to block and censor ips via DNS, so I don't trust this initiative at all, nor, frankly, do I trust the EU as an organization. It should stick to foreign policy, not trying to overrule our national governments to force legislation onto us that we don't want.

It’s targeting testosterone level, which varies by person and there are cis women with higher levels than some men.

I'm going to stop you right there. Given changes that are slowly permeating both language and legal systems across the world, "man" or "woman" doesn't really have anything to do with biology anymore, nor are terms like "cis" or "trans" really relevant to biology (more so a persons current legal/presenting gender compared to the one they were assigned at birth). As such they aren't useful terms when discussing in the context of what biologically is normal with regards to hormone levels.

The terms that do exist and are relevant (at least in English, my other native language doesn't have separate words for sex and gender which can complicate medical discussions and also makes folks more attached to the biological definition -_-) are male, female and intersex. When looking at a healthy human female they won't have anywhere near the testosterone levels of a healthy male - it's a 5x order of magnitude between the upper female and lower male ranges, even when accounting for PCO/S - which isn't necessarily unhealthy, but just that extra 10-20% outside the normal female range can be enough to start having effects such as growing facial hair in puberty. The gap - along with XY individuals with low testosterone and XX individuals with high testosterone are those who end up developing in an intersex manner, in one way or another (this is already during the fetal stage).

Honestly I feel like we're getting far from the original conversation here, but it's part of what makes these topics so inherently difficult. Balancing between how sensitive some people can find the topic on a social level (particularly when having dealt with actual bad actors), the huge risk of misinterpretations/miscommunications and then the medical field dealing with the biological situation that ultimately is the basis of all this. Evaluating these topics is amongst the most difficult ethical dilemmas we have in the field - right up there with human euthanasia and I don't think there can be a single "right" answer. You're going to end up with different people being hurt wherever the balance is struck and that really, really sucks.

but if we need to protect women’s “fair” competition strongly for some reason, shouldn’t we also have leagues for all types of people?

I think you're being sarcastic here, but there is a trend in that direction, with paralympics and such. It all comes down to this. How is the protected class of athletes defined? If a space for female athletes is going to exist at all, there needs to be some definition, which inevitably is going to feel arbitrary to some. The one they've gone with excludes males and most intersex individuals - allowing a little wiggle room here for folks with XY who have no male testosterone production which medically speaking makes it into a "woman at birth with low androgens" competition since those people will usually have a female phenotype at birth.

In the case of Imane - it may speculatively (after now reading a little about the circumstances and the "leaked" results) be a case of XY intersex with some kind of androgen dysfunction, either through reduced production via enzyme deficiency or partial insensitivity to testo. Being from a less developed country it's quite possible that Imane wouldn't even be aware of such a condition until it came to light due to the testing, and even if it was noticed earlier by Algerian medical professionals it may have been hidden from the patient due to how controversial intersex individuals are in traditionally muslim countries. This was the case for a long time even in the west, some countries even into the 2000's - "in the best interest of the patient". Quite tragic really.

You can though - at least to the extent that we in empirical science usually refer to "proving" or "disproving" (or rather, indicate or contraindicate a hypothesis). In this case it'd be studies/metastudies on injuries in different kinds of matchups (which can either show a statistically significant difference or not) or in performance of different athletes.

The case you linked here is regarding football, not boxing, which simply makes it a question of performance rather than also safety (as it is with boxing or other combat sports). The key difference in judgement here is the same reason that there are weight classes - simply wouldn't be safe (or fair for that matter) to match up a 120kg vs a 60 kg athlete - the latter might literally get killed.

Performance wise, the most "fair" might be to sort athletes into leagues based on testosterone levels. It's already known that higher testosterone levels tend to correlate with higher performance, so rather than imposing an arbitrary limit where only the athletes in the "sweet spot" just below the limit get to excel, grade them into brackets based on that. Women's sports were established in the first place to give women a fair chance at competing, since male vs female competitions in the vast majority of cases end up very one sided.

Prosperous universe might fit the bill depending on how deep into economy sim you want to go. Beware that you have some limitations as a completely free player, that are removed (last I checked) after you've made at least one purchase. So think of playing "free" as an infinite demo.

Thing is, my time is limited. I don't have time to look into every single thing. No, this isn't some empiric process on my part. It comes down to judgement.

On the one hand there is a well established organization (and several others actually, I did do a cursory internet search) backed by an army medical professionals, which will get sued into oblivion by these athletes if they are egregiously wrong. What they're saying also happens to check out with my own knowledge on the topic and news that has circulated (both in regular papers and on occasion medical news).

On the other hand, there are a bunch of random internet strangers who, without citing any external sources say that the well established organization is wrong and lying.

So, which one would you be inclined to believe?

Again, feel free to drop in some material that you think disproves this, I would love to have a look!

No, it's not "just World Boxing’s statement". Have a look at the author. If you take issue with the validity of the claims maybe try and contact him, he's a medical professional with literal decades of experience in this exact field.

Do you actually think safety is the real concern here?

...yes, in fact combat sports are usually more safety conscious given that they constantly have to deal with the issue. One slip up and zip, someone's dead.

Some countries permit people to have the gender on their birth certificate changed after transition, which unfortunately renders your suggestion moot. Also from the wording in the article I think the testing will be applied to male athletes also.

Testing for chromosomes in this day and age is also quite simple and rather cheap. The main issue really is how privacy is handled. Personally I wouldn't want to have to be subjected to a gene test for a job.

I'm not particularly familiar with the politics of sports, nor am I particularly interested - as such I won't comment on what their goals are. I am, however, very familiar with human biology and healthcare. 5 yrs of secondary + tertiary education familiar in addition to several years of work experience. You'll unfortunately have to take my word for that. I don't intend to dox myself with documentation.

With my outlook on the topic, it doesn't seem like a "crusade of bullshit and misinformation". Headline news, physiology and most importantly "data and medical evidence from an extensive range of sources and consulted widely with other sports and experts across the world" - as they claim. I don't have time to personally look into that (sucks to have a life amirite) but am inclined to trust that they care for the athletes and have done due diligence. If you (or anyone else for that matter!) has material that disputes the validity of their work do feel free to link it in a reply. I and others I'm sure would be interested in reading such material.

Thanks.

...from the article

... to ensure the safety of all participants and deliver a competitive level playing field for men and women.

...which has examined data and medical evidence from an extensive range of sources and consulted widely with other sports and experts across the world.

This decision reflects concerns over the safety and wellbeing of all boxers, including Imane Khelif, and aims to protect the mental and physical health of all participants...

...and another citation for good measure.

At least from what I've read previously, these rules changes are primarily related to incidents where female athletes have been severely injured when competing against mtf athletes - but it's long been a contentious issue. As is often the case, when rules are changed/implemented they end up being broad and catching others in the crossfire.

It's unfortunate that it's ended up being necessary. However, there are many professions where people can't work due to genetics or health (eyesight, cardiac issues etc.) and athletics in general is already a field highly affected by genetics. C'est la vie...

Generally because the differences in male and female biology mean that ftm athletes are coming in at a disadvantage and only risk end up being hurt themselves by male athletes who generally have them at a disadvantage. Mtf athletes however, due to the aspects of male physiology that remain, have a higher likelihood of having an advantage over female athletes and also posing a danger to the other athletes. This is generally why most womens categories were introduced in the first place (female physical disadvantage).

Especially in martial arts and combat sports like boxing, which are already inherently dangerous, the physical safety of the athletes and protecting them must come above more ephemeral goals such as inclusion in my view.

As it stands with current day medical technology, there are limits to how close a transitioning individual can be changed to resemble the opposing gender.

Given how deep the differences are physiologically between the sexes with things such as lyonization I'm not entirely sure that it will ever be possible to fully transition a person outside of weird and ethically questionable future tech such as vat-growing a genetically modified clone and somehow transferring the consciousness of the person.